The Effect of Virtual coping skills training on self-efficacy of adolescents with type 1 diabetes during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: A pilot study
Background: Type 1 diabetes patients may find it difficult to cope with diabetes-related stress, which can be improved by accessible interventions. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether coping skill training could increase self-efficacy among adolescents with type 1 diabetes dur...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Caspian journal of health research 2022-04, Vol.7 (2), p.69-74 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Type 1 diabetes patients may find it difficult to cope with diabetes-related stress, which can be improved by accessible interventions. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether coping skill training could increase self-efficacy among adolescents with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted as a pretest-posttest design with a control group. The study population was adolescents diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at Tehran Diabetes Center during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown from June to August 2021. Sixteen adolescents with type 1 diabetes were selected using a purposeful sampling method. The participants were divided into experimental (n=9) and control groups (n=7). The measurement tool was the General Self-Efficacy Scale. A total of eight sessions of coping skill training took place for the experimental group; no intervention was performed for the control group. A multivariate analysis of covariance was used to analyze the data. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing SPSS, Version 23. Results: There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of age sex, and baseline score of self-efficacy. In the posttest, self-efficacy score significantly improved in the intervention (71.52, SD=13.86) compared to the control group (48.13, SD=12.96) (F=18.97, P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2423-8171 2423-8171 |
DOI: | 10.32598/CJHR.7.2.410.1 |